Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurmeet Singh Grewal vs Deepak Kumar on 4 August, 2015

Author: Rajesh Bindal

Bench: Rajesh Bindal

           Civil Revision No. 4260 of 2015                                    [1]

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                          AT CHANDIGARH


                                            Civil Revision No. 4260 of 2015 (O&M)
                                            Date of decision: 4.8.2015


           Gurmeet Singh Grewal
                                                                     .. Petitioner

                                v.

           Deepak Kumar
                                                                     .. Respondent


           CORAM:               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL


           Present:             Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with
                                Mr. Himanshu Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.
                                                  ...

Rajesh Bindal J.

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 21.4.2015, passed by the court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant for framing of additional issue, was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the written statement filed, a specific plea was raised regarding cancellation of the agreement to sell. As the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking specific performance only was not maintainable, in case there was cancellation of agreement, a specific issue pertaining to that was required to be framed with onus on the defendant. In support of his plea, reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in I.S.Sikandar (D) by LRs v. K. Subramani and others, 2014(1) RCR (Civil) 236.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The court has already opined that the issue specifically framed to the extent "as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1.7.2005" will cover the entire aspect. There is no MANOJ KUMAR 2015.08.06 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Civil Revision No. 4260 of 2015 [2] error in the opinion expressed by the court.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 4.8.2015 mk MANOJ KUMAR 2015.08.06 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document